Study: more deaths from climate change unless we repent now

From the LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE & TROPICAL MEDICINE and the “who needs death certificates when you have RCP models?” department.

Study of impact of climate change on temperatures suggests more deaths unless action taken

The largest study to date of the potential temperature-related health impacts of climate change has shown that as global temperatures rise, the surge in death rates during hot weather outweighs any decrease in deaths in cold weather, with many regions facing sharp net increases in mortality rates.

Published in The Lancet Planetary Health, the study compared heat- and cold-related mortality across 451 locations around the world, and showed that warmer regions of the planet will be particularly affected. For instance, if no action is taken by 2090-99 a net increase in deaths of +12.7% is projected in South-East Asia, and mortality rates would also rise in Southern Europe (+6·4%) and South America (+4·6%). Meanwhile, cooler regions such as Northern Europe could experience either no change or a marginal decrease in deaths.

Encouragingly, the research, led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, also showed these deaths could largely be avoided under scenarios that include mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further warming of the planet.

Antonio Gasparrini, Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and lead author of the paper, said: “Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century. Although previous studies have shown a potential rise in heat-related mortality, little was known about the extent to which this increase would be balanced by a reduction in cold-related deaths. In addition, effects tend to vary across regions, depending on local climate and other characteristics, making global comparisons very difficult.

“This study demonstrates the negative impact of climate change, which may be more dramatic among the warmer and more populated areas of the planet, and in some cases disproportionately affect poorer regions of the world. The good news is that if we take action to reduce global warming, for instance by complying with the thresholds set by the Paris Agreement[1], this impact will be much lower.”

The research, funded by the Medical Research Council, involved creating the first global model of how mortality rates change with hot or cold weather. It used real data from 85 million deaths between 1984 and 2015, specific to a wide-range of locations that took into account different climates, socioeconomics and demographics.

This enabled the team to estimate how temperature-related mortality rates will change under alternative scenarios of climate change, defined by the four Representative Concentration Pathways[2] (RCPs) established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for climate modelling and research in 2014.

Under the worst-case scenario (RCP 8.5), which assumes that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century, the authors show the potential for extremely large net increases in temperature-related mortality in the warmer regions of the world. In cooler areas, the less intense warming and large decrease in cold-related deaths may mean no net change or a marginal reduction in temperature-related deaths.

Under the strictest pathway (RCP 2.6), which assumes an early peak of greenhouse gas emissions which then decline substantially, the potential net increases in mortality rates at the end of the century be minimal (between -0.4% and +0.6%) in all the regions included in this study, highlighting the benefits of the implementation of mitigation policies.

Sir Andy Haines, Professor of Public Health & Primary Care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and study co-author, said: “This paper shows how heat related deaths will escalate in the absence of decisive action to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and short-lived climate pollutants such as methane and black carbon. Such action could also result in major health benefits in the near term by reducing deaths from air pollution.

“It is imperative that the actions are taken to build on the achievements of the Paris Treaty as the commitments made there are insufficient to prevent warming above 2 degrees C compared with pre-industrial temperatures.”

Antonio Gasparrini said: “The findings of this study will be crucial for the development of coordinated and evidence-based climate and public health policies, and for informing the ongoing international discussion on the health impacts of climate change that is vital for the future health of humanity.”

The authors acknowledge limitations in the study, including the lack of data for some regions of the world, and the fact that adaptation mechanisms and potential changes to demographics have not been accounted for.

Evidently, Britain’s National Healthcare System has attended to every one of their patients on multi-year waiting lists. They’re all caught up. All the medical professionals have delivered the needed care of their own people … so they have free time to study Global Warming.

Wait! This study says that human population has EXPLODED by 2 Billion … which they’ve identified as a planet-wrecking trend. So … it would appear as though these “medical professionals” must NOT heal the sick … but let them DIE in order to “save the planet”. Our medical schools appear to be training a new generation of Undertakers … not Doctors.

Wait! This is a classic example of negative feedback! More heat = more deaths = less people = less CO2 = less heat. Of course, these geniuses didn’t factor in the improved standards of living resulting from the availability of cheap. abundant (fossil fuel) energy which leads to lower birth rates (e.g. Europe, North America, Australia) and therefore less people and less CO2. No, let’s assume everything remains constant except CO2 increases over the next 100 years. Brilliant!

As you point out the authors are willing to admit the uselessness of thier own study, but only after averyone runs screening from the room in terror. I don’t need a climate model to know there are going to be more deaths – at least 7.5 billion of them (mine will be one of those), and every one of those deaths will happen in the presence of climate of all sorts. It must be our fault!

Tom,
You – and Walt D, above – seem to be both worshipping at the church of Russia’s greatest general – General Winter.
I worship there myself.
Cold kills.
Warmth can be mitigated.
trebla’s comment above – “Of course, these geniuses didn’t factor in the improved standards of living resulting from the availability of cheap. abundant (fossil fuel) energy which leads to lower birth rates (e.g. Europe, North America, Australia) and therefore less people and less CO2. ” – applies in spades.
If folk have electricity – reliable electricity [and batteries might, possibly, contribute, perhaps . . .] – they can have fans or aircon.
Many near tropical and tropical cultures already build houses to minimise temperature highs; that will continue.
Plus CO2 greens the planet.

Not sure that the NHS has caught up, but Gasparrini et al, authors, should keep their jobs. More important – to them.

Not sure why I would post this Too many idiots out there that would take it ‘literally’. On the other hand, the people pushing a New World Order and One Government should take great delight in this. Isn’t their agenda to DECREASE the population? It would be much more beneficial for them to blame us for killing each other then them being responsible for a world genocide. Wouldn’t it.

So they admit no notice has been taken of adaptation mechanisms but nevertheless proceed to make hysterical claims to pander to the alarmist lobby. Perhaps they should have talked to a few historians who could have put them very straight about what happens to large numbers of people when climates are cold as opposed to how whole regional populations flourish in warm conditions.
Have these people ever been to South East Asia? Or ever heard of Greenland? Or seen pictures of the rock cave paintings in North Africa?

the surge in death rates during hot weather outweighs any decrease in deaths in cold weather

A casual read might lead you to believe they compared X degrees of temperature INCREASE with a similar DECREASE.
But, no.
They only compared the impact of the several IPCC warming scenarios; (harmful) warming was a given. There was no consideration of the impact if temperatures DROPPED from current levels.

This enabled the team to estimate how temperature-related mortality rates will change under alternative scenarios of climate change, defined by the four Representative Concentration Pathways[2] (RCPs) established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for climate modelling and research in 2014.

All they did was compare the most extreme projected warming of the IPCC with the three less extreme scenarios.

They come up with the awkward conclusion that the “savings” in deaths of “cooler” scenarios compared to 8.5 does not make up for the deaths attributable to the delta between that cooler scenario and 8.5.

“So they admit no notice has been taken of adaptation mechanisms but nevertheless proceed to make hysterical claims . . . ”

It’s worse than that. The study failed to account for the heat-related deaths avoided when CO2 is emitted by people using air conditioners to stay cool. Had they done the relevant comparison of a first scenario where people are forced to cut back on their electricity usage to prevent the theoretical increase in future temperatures, against a second scenario where electricity usage is not artificially constrained, they likely would have found that “actions taken to build on the achievements of the Paris Accord” would cause more heat related deaths than those actions would avoid.

Let’s see: start with some IPCC schmodels. Then plug in a concern, in this case, public health. Crank the “threat” level to 11. Presto, out comes more climate garbage Truth. Add the icing on the cake, that we must act now, “before it’s too late”.
ClimateTruth™ 101.

The single biggest killer related to heat is not heat itself, it’s availability of potable water, and/or behaviors that mitigate the effects of dehydration. Heat exhaustion is almost always co-diagnosed with dehydration. These researchers, (in name only), seem to be painfully ignorant of this, and have made conclusions as if heat, alone, were the offending force.

We must stop people from moving from New York City to Miami immediately! It’s for their own good. If they resist, shoot them, again for their own good.
How about a “Biting Sarcasm” tag, just in case Kenji is on the loose again.

The RCP scenarios are so bogus, they defy rational thinking. All they do is add a lot of additional uncertainty on top of the massive uncertainty (+/- 50%) regarding the effect incremental energy flux (forcing) has on the surface temperature. This seems to be for no other reason than to hide the underlying uncertainty behind the presumed climate sensitivity. Making this so much worse is that despite all the uncertainty, the presumed lower limit exceeds the maximum effect supported by the laws of physics.

Anyone who accepts this garbage as ‘settled’ is either not paying attention or so deluded by politics that their brain has turned to mush.

RCP 8.5 is bogus… It’s not even realistic enough to be called bad science fiction. If RCP 4.5 will doom SE Asia, then they were already doomed. RCP 4.5 is what the weather will likely do anyway, no matter how many windmills, solar panels and Tesla cars we “invest” in.

Fortunately for SE Asia, the error bar for heat-related excess mortality is YUGE…

Even more fortunately for SE Asia, the study assumes that people will neither adapt, nor move…

We computed the excess mortality attributable to temperature by projecting the impact using the modelled daily series of temperature and mortality under the assumption of no adaptation or population changes…

David,
Even RCP4.5 will not doom SE Asia. Given the true climate sensitivity range of between .2 and .3 C per W/m^2, 4.5 W/m^2 of forcing (approx 1.5 doubling of CO2 per the IPCC) will result in a temperature increase of only between 0.9C and 1.4 C and not the 1.8C to 5.4C claimed by the broken consensus.

Given the factor of 2 error with the 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing claimed to arise from doubling CO2, any temperature effect will most likely be between 0.45C and 0.7C.

BTW, the factor of 2 error arises because 3.7 W/m^2 is the decrease in emissions at TOA upon INSTANTANEOUSLY doubling atmospheric CO2. Since the atmosphere is absorbing the 3.7 W/m^2 from the surface and the atmosphere emits both into space and back to the surface, the LTE equivalent solar forcing (the equivalent effect after the system has adapted to doubling CO2) is only half of 3.7 W/m^2.

It’s been 20 years since this dystopian fantasy of CAGW was started. Shouldn’t there already be piles of dead bodies everywhere? Why still do these studies need to rely on models then? Don’t you ever even question if possibly these concerns were exaggerated to push a political agenda, or you really that stupid or naive? I think I know the answer to my own question.

Thirty years… Hanson’s grandstanding in a deliberately hot and sticky Congressional hearing occurred in 1989, and 2019 is barely more than a year away. But Anthony already provided the answer to your question: …“who needs death certificates when you have RCP models?” department… In actual fact, this entire press release seems to have problems with word usage. It says “study” four times, before it finally talks about methodology(?), where we find the methods BEGAN with, “…creating the first global model…”. So in reality, there was never any “study” at all, just a “model”, which as we have discussed ad nauseum, is usually an exercise in wasting computer time by re-running the “model”, then tuning the parameters until it spits out the answer they’re looking for. As Anthony already noted, who needs evidence when you have a model?

I am still, even after 11 years of poking around in this Grand Deception, especially bothered by the approach, used in 99.9% of the Gorebull Warming “studies”, of taking in increasing future temperature of the Earth as a given, and producing predictions on what happens under those horrendous conditions. This just smells like a massive waste of grant money. But then, I’m only an engineer, where most things I design get built almost immediately and the whole world finds out whether or not my approach had merit. Why should these “scientists” be bothered by something as tiresome as verification by real-world events?

The Code of Hammurabi contains what may be the first building code in human history. “Should a man build a house, and should this house fall down and kill another man, the man who built the house shall be put to death.”

There is something that you should know about the Lancet – but you probably already do – and that is that a certain christina figures has become a guiding influence there:

-“The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is meeting these needs.3 By providing annual data across a range of indicators, the Lancet Countdown will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.
The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.”-

But whilst one should bear in mind that there may be undeclared reasons for this study , at this time, the study itself seems to be well done and I am inclined to believe it (a bit patronising of me given my lack of knowledge of statistics ) but there are limitations to the work:

We analysed 74 225 200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012. In total, 7·71% (95% empirical CI 7·43–7·91) of mortality was attributable to non-optimum temperature in the selected countries within the study period, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from 3·37% (3·06 to 3·63) in Thailand to 11·00% (9·29 to 12·47) in China. The temperature percentile of minimum mortality varied from roughly the 60th percentile in tropical areas to about the 80–90th percentile in temperate regions. More temperature-attributable deaths were caused by cold (7·29%, 7·02–7·49) than by heat (0·42%, 0·39–0·44). Extreme cold and hot temperatures were responsible for 0·86% (0·84–0·87) of total mortality.

So it’s not temperature extremes that cause mortality but “non-optimum temperatures.” And cold is 20 times more lethal today so in order for heat to become the dominant killer we have to pass through a regime where net mortality falls. Presumably the authors are advocating for additional warming over what we already have, just not too much, right? Right?

Tsk Tsk, having done both short and long range projections, anybody that gives projected values in the tenth and hundredth (!) percent (data accuracy of one thousandth to one ten thousandth) is deluded or attempting to convince, rather than illuminate.

I don’t have time to read the article, but wonder whether they recommend that governments require warning climate refugees (retired people moving from cold climates to warmer locations) that making the move will reduce their life expectancy. More seriously, how often do people move from warm weather locations to cold weather locations when they retire.

In London, a lot of folk retired to the South Coast – from Devon to Kent. That pushed house prices up near the coast.
Some folk are now retiring northwards – much more baronial hall for your buck.
Probably nowhere near a majority, though.

There is something that you should know about the Lancet – but you probably already do – and that is that a certain Christiana Figueres has become a guiding influence there:

-“The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is meeting these needs.3 By providing annual data across a range of indicators, the Lancet Countdown will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.
The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.”-

But whilst one should bear in mind that there may be undeclared reasons for this study , at this time, the study itself seems to be well done and I am inclined to believe it (a bit patronising of me given my lack of knowledge of statistics ) but there are limitations to the work if I have read it correctly
1. the geographical area does not include India, Africa or central Asia .
2. The cold related mortalities far exceed heat related mortalities (their Fig2) and only under the most extreme conditions of global warming do heat related fatalities exceed cold related , and then mainly in SouthEast Asia.

I love it when medical doctors “guide” me in my behavioral choices. I remember that way back in the 1950s, most cigarette ads featured a doctor with the de rigeur white smock and stethoscope around his neck touting the health benefits of one brand over another. In fact, the smoking rate among doctors was HIGHER than that of the population as a whole. The British Doctors study was based on an analysis of 50,000 British physicians, most of whom smoked and many of whom succumbed to lung cancer. Medical doctors aren’t scientists.

“1. the geographical area does not include India, Africa or central Asia ”

I wondered about that as well. I am guessing that they don’t have collaborators in this areas? Or that the records are not sound? It seems that the results of S Europe and SE Asia would cover those regions, since all the more northern regions are similar to each another.

As noted, they did NOT compare heat related mortalities vs cool related. They only compared the 4 increased temperature scenarios of the IPCC.

This enabled the team to estimate how temperature-related mortality rates will change under alternative scenarios of climate change, defined by the four Representative Concentration Pathways[2] (RCPs) established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for climate modelling and research in 2014.

But now let the MSM get ahold of the abstract of the study and half the world will think that a temperature increase is worse than a decrease.

An afterthought … I’m only surprised these people didn’t think of claiming a huge expected increase in mental ill health. While mental illness is not something to politicise, it is clear that the alarmists are perfectly happy to invoke the immediate prospect of any human misfortune being made hugely worse to shamelessly plug their climate narrative, so I guess it is only a matter of time. The rest of us can draw the obvious conclusion…

How can deaths from increasing temperatures be “difficult to predict” when we have solid historical data on that subject stretching from the mid 1800’s at the end of the Little Ice Age, to the present? Are these people so inept they can’t use recorded birth, death and population statistics?

Are the temperatures going up? Or are the mean temperatures going up? If the
latter then my bet would be that the increases are primarily because the minimums
are less cold than they used to be. Is this something we should be worried about?
Not me.

Considering most of the warming has been in the far northern hemisphere, and also at night, just how do they conclude that anyone is going to die early from global warming? If anything, it is exactly the opposite. And also why the planet supports 7.5 billion people, thankfully to warming, and the vast use of fossil fuels to replace animal/slave power. A much better world on balance.

I wonder why nobody lives permanently on Antarctica and Arctic populations are very low. Could it be that cold kills most of the people that try? Perhaps it is just because your garden does not thrive or that polar bears might eat you. Perhaps babies do not thrive on walrus milk. I wonder why populations are so high in tropical or semi-tropical areas. Could it be that survival rates are much higher? Given a choice, would you prefer to live in Moscow or in Miami? All a reasonably healthy person needs to survive a heat wave is water and shade. There is really nothing but fuel and fire that can ensure your survival for long periods of extreme cold. A polar winter is, basically, mostly shade and extreme cold for several months. At the equator about twelve hours of every day are shade.

So cheap electricity won’t make air conditioning more affordable? Like most liberals, you failed to learn anything in ECON 101, or perhaps you chose to take some kind of minority victimization reinforcement class instead. You also have zero clue about life in SE asia. I travel there often, perhaps you should actually go there once before opening your mouth and removing any doubt about your ignorance and stupidity.

The lack of cheap, reliable electricity is one of the things that keeps people in developing countries poor. Poverty really does shorten lives by a lot, so a poor country that develops economically while generate vast increases in emissions will see a *large* increase in well-being.

The funny thing is that the unrealistic RCP 8.5 explicitly depends on this development, a vast increase in emissions driven by a massive increase in the fossil-fueled economy. The global per-capita income in 2100 under RCP 8.5 is many times higher than todays. Using RCP 8.5 as a basis for action presumes it is rational for us to damage our own economy for the benefit of future generations that will be much wealthier and well-able to afford adaptation.

Any estimates of damage that does not consider adaptation, as this one apparently explicitly does not, is worthless.

And the reason they are so poor is that their leaders are more interested in preserving power and lining their own pockets than in improving the standard of living of their countrymen. Keep in mind that these same corrupt leaders are to be the recipients of unjustifiable climate reparations.

Yes, SE Asia needs some affordable energy and economic growth, i.e. coal. India does not need a fu… naughty word deleted… a satanic emissions reduction in the West, but growth. Poverty is not gonna go away with taxes or wellfare, but after growth makes them possible.

My understanding of ECON 101? So how do you plan to get the elect so cheap that people with no $$ can buy it? There is a reason that only 3% of the people in India pay taxes.

There is more to poverty that feeding it electricity.
=======================================================================
Yes, it invariably means not implementing socialist/command economic policies. If you allow the market to operate freely with basic rule of law to enforce contracts and deal with fraud not only will electricity become cheap enough for the poor to afford, but the poor will no longer be so.

Not to throw water on a good fire, but AGW will cause the most warming at the poles and during the nights. So by my understanding the warming will be less pronounced in the tropics and during the days.

Of course they failed to take this into account. This temperature dependence of the sensitivity is a consequence of the SB Law and the 1/T^3 dependence on the sensitivity it demands. The minute they accept a temperature dependence on the sensitivity they will be forced to discount everything else that they believe in. For example, a nominal sensitivity 3-4 times what the SB Law constrains it to be.

“…for instance by complying with the thresholds set by the Paris Agreement[1], this impact will be much lower.”

He obviously doesn’t understand even the IPCC’s pseudoscience. If he did, he’d know like Dr James Hansen has noted, that the Paris Agreement carbon emission INDCs will have no discernible impact on temperature trajectories when uncertainties are included in those regions he noted effects. The biggest impacts to regional temps according to the IPCC will be the higher latitudes where he notes, “could experience either no change or a marginal decrease in deaths.”

Nassim Taleb of course came up with a moniker that describes Antonio Gasparrini and his ilk: Intellectual Yet Idiot. (IYI).

“What’s IYI?
Intellectual Yet Idiot: semi-erudite bureaucrat who thinks he is an erudite; pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand not realizing it is his understanding that may be limited; imparts normative ideas to others: thinks people should act according to their best interests *and* he knows their interests, particularly if they are uneducated “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class.

Apparently Dr..Gasparirini sees all those SE Asians, Southern Europeans, and South Americans as his version of red-neck hicks. They are his unwashed masses upon which he knows what is in their best interest.

What most interesting is his exclusion of Africa which has some of the highest birth rates in the world for the 21st Century. Of the world’s top 30 birth rates, all are in Africa, except for two: Afghanistan (4), and the Gaza Strip (25). How very white of him. How very IYI of him.

The bozos who write this grade of toilet paper display an unbelievable level of self-unawareness by showing that they have no inkling of how foolish they make themselves appear to so many thinking people.

“For instance, if no action is taken by 2090-99 a net increase in deaths of +12.7% is projected in South-East Asia, and mortality rates would also rise in Southern Europe (+6·4%) and South America (+4·6%).”

Au contraire. By 2090-99, compared to today, the death rate is going to be well beyond a measly +12.7% let alone a pathetically minute +6.4%, or even more pathetic +4.6%. In fact, I can just about guarantee them that the death rate will be orders of magnitude greater than what they’re claiming. I predict the death rate, by 2090-99 will be quite close to 100% of everybody alive today.

Of course that may not be what they mean. But, I don’t see how it can’t be because there’s no way to possibly predict when members of future generations will kick the bucket, give up the ghost, meet their maker, or kiss their a.. goodbye. I mean, have these researchers factored in the possibility of nuclear war? After Iran gets the bomb Saudi Arabia and Egypt are gonna want their’s and they can buy them from Pakistan. If China doesn’t put the screws to Rocketman, Japan might want the big bomb as well. And, the more nukes, the greater the likelihood someone somewhere lets the genie outta the bottle. Have those eminent researchers factored that in to their statistical analysis or is it too minor a problem? Have these ERRORS (Eminent Researchers Researching Obviously Ridiculous Stuff) taken into account potential pandemics tween now and 2099? After, all AIDS sprang up as a surprise. And, of course, lots of germs are now resistant to antibiotics. Have these ERRORS factored in changing demographics, migratory patterns, societal collapses, technological changes, political changes, increases in non-child bearing gay marriages, teleconferencing, alien contact? Sure, some of the foregoing is silly (but, in the end, no sillier than research that so totally lacks foresight), but some is deadly serious. And far more serious than any CAGW death rate changes 100 years from now.

“The research, funded by the Medical Research Council, involved creating the first global model of how mortality rates change with hot or cold weather.”

Model love. They think their projections into the century are data.

Actually this love of models is the new post-modern science. The climate modelers have been doing this of course for decades. They are using computer clusters to perform untold amounts of complex computer calculations to generate their income stream. Doesn’t matter that it’s all virtual reality.

In this regard, these guys are no different from the cryptocurrency miners who “create” Bitcoins by running complex computer calculations. Their profit is simply running computer algorithms to create a virtual product. What a hustle.

I guess you all know that the only remaining hope of ever breaking the cycle of ignorance, witch doctor level voodoo pseudoscience and despair lies with God Emperor Trump and his America don’t you? No politician, institution or journal in Europe, Australasia or Canada is ever going to break ranks on this. I cannot see any possibility of a non-career political maverick like Trump gaining power anywhere else. Even if a right wing party get voted in somewhere – like Austria for example – they will just keep quiet on this issue so their detractors cannot use the hysterical and risible yet universally accepted “science denier” slur.

Even now with all the evidence piling up on the side of the sceptics and not a whiff of significant warming happening or accelerating sea level rise or more extreme weather or ocean pH and on and on and the models completely discredited the UK government has placed a windmill-loving, true-believing eco-loon in the position of Environment Minister. Right at the time we need to be accelerating away from the doomed EU and going full-on fracking and nuclear the ‘government’ appoints a moonbat to cover all the lands in useless windmills and solar panels to drive up electricity prices and drive industry away.

Oh it’s just my warped sense of humour joel. Some react with ‘hell yeah!’ others with laughter thinking I’m taking the p!ss, others again like yourself with ‘WTF?’ and last but not least the Libtards with screaming, frothing at the mouth, rolling around on the floor spasming and death threats. It’s mainly for this last group that I do it :)

cephus, I understand your warped sense of humor, but it is a slap on President Trumps base.
When you slam American voters with those ‘lines’, it’s rude to us.
We ( I, and assuming others) do NOT think or refer to Our President as G-D. Because he is not, and we would never put him over our Lord in any fashion.

I get the feeling our UK government is playing the game with the rest of Europe relative to climate change, until we split from the damn place. Why else would they make a ridiculous pledge that we’ll be entirely EV by 2040, I mean, it’s not like we have any significant British car manufacturers any longer, so how can that possibly be controlled? If the Germans or Japanese change their minds on the subject, we have to go with the flow.

I don’t think we’ll moving anything else forward until Brexit is over, Anna Subrey today on Jeremy Vines show seemed entirely honest when she said Brexit was overshadowing everything else domestic and there’s a lot of stuff piling up. I would imagine the climate is one of those things and considering May’s precarious position right now, she doesn’t need to rock the boat by bringing it up.

We’re politically becalmed at the moment but when Brexit is over I don’t think we have much choice but to cosy up to the US, no bad thing in my opinion, as negotiations will be faster, not least because we speak the same lingo and are culturally very close.

Then we’ll really see what our governments position will be on climate change, especially if Trumps policies start bearing fruit in terms of employment. If positive, I think a second term will be a landslide as I believe (no real evidence though) he’s gained a lot of support for standing up to N. Korea.

Our ludicrous energy policy may be shorter term than we are led to believe.

Thanks for this. It lends some hope in dark and difficult times. You may well be right and I of course truly hope you are. It’s notable that one of May’s first moves on taking office was to scrap the Klimate Change Department and this was a fantastic moment as it appeared that she actually *KNOWS* it’s a pile of bs. In addition they are dishing out fracking licences and what with background nuclear planning perhaps they are indeed paying lip service only in the foreground. Oh yes, and the renewables subsidies are tumbling too – much to the horror of the Grauniad and Griff.

If the current government is hamstrung by the disastrous performance in the last election and Corbyn clawing at their heels then putting Gove in as Environment Minister to make foreground squawks about eliminating ICE vehicles by 2040 and such like patent green absurdities with a view to boat stabilisation then perhaps that’s a half-decent strategy.

There! I feel better already. Sometimes difficult to stay rational on these issues.

It’s still a madhouse mate. I don’t see the Conservatives coming out of Brexit well, there will be too short a period before another election for anything positive to turn up to save them. And of course, they will have to make unpopular changes in the interim that’ll be spun to Corbyn’s advantage.

I heard on Radio 2 today, some left wing female spinning the fact that a Labour politician had called a black Conservative MP a “ghetto poster boy”, but it was the Conservatives that were racist because he didn’t last too long as an MP and the Cameron camp got rid of him. I couldn’t get my jaw off my desk. And a rabid lefty caller accused the BBC of being right wing sympathisers, all within 2 hours! But of course no mention, nor challenge from Jeremy Vine about Labour being anti Semitic.

None of it gives me much hope that we won’t have Corbyn as the next PM with that syphilitic, poisoned, communist sidekick of his, McDonnell egging him on.

What the country needs is a Conservative version of Farage; straight talking, logical, articulate and brave. My vote would be for Daniel Hannan who is almost there, close enough I think, but we’re likely to get Jacob Rees-Mogg, another plummy ex Eton, wealthy, tax haven busines type who won’t appeal to many Conservative voters never mind attract any from the left. David Davis should have TM’s job as he is a far more competent speaker and debater, but of course the powers that be thought TM would attract the women’s vote the same way Maggie did. When will they learn to elect a leader on competence rather background or shaky vote chasing?

The reported figures should therefore be interpreted as potential impacts under well defined but hypothetical scenarios, and not as predictions of future excess mortality.

So, on a hypothetical planet something may happen under certain well defined but hypothetical scenarios. Sounds plausible. But can they now explain why humans on the very real planet of Earth should care one bit about this make-believe planet their paper discusses?

Here we go again. All of their assumptions are based upon Global Warming caused by Humans emissions of CO2. Ignoring that CO2 has increased steadily and no significant warming has occurred. Ignoring that the Earth is becoming greener and the population growth of Fauna – including billions of Humans has doubled since the 1960’s. That longevity has outweighed mortality rates. While ignoring that affordable energy from Fossil Fuels would reduce the mortality rates in the areas they are talking about.

This is not the first study that the Lancet has published about the so-called health dangers from climate change.

Earlier this month they published “Health & Climate Change”, which contained a pack of misinformation about heatwaves, agricultural productivity, weather related disasters, dengue fever and food security. All easily disproved, as I showed here:

You repent first with your dime while the rest of us study science and the methodology that was used in undermining science and science policy during the dark ages of global warming policy distortion—one released document at a time.

“Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century.” They are right, but for the wrong reasons. Well, that would be true if they were talking about a massive cooling event, such as a major strata volcano going off in a deep El Nina and we lose most of the crop in the northern hemisphere. If the same events happened in 1815 like with Tambora, and the resulting following year ‘without a summer’ in 1816, the ability to support 7.5 billion people now would be precarious at best. This is truly a nightmare scenario, and why any such attempts at reducing planetary temperatures should be dismissed. This is the only insurance policy we have, and if Earth’s temps have increased .8 degree in 150 years, then we should be very, very glad that it went this way and not going back into the depths of the LIA.

Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue to go on for eons whether Mankind is here or not. The climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.

The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect which has not been observed anywhere in our solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events are part of our current climate and would continue to happen. We do not know of any optimum climate that would stop weather cycles and extreme weather events. So if we could change our climate to whatever we wanted we do not know what climate to change it to.

And there’s a good change that it will be happening again real soon. No doubt the lunatics will come up with some cockamainy model supporting the idea that mankinds CO2 emissions have shut down the sunspot cycles.

“The authors acknowledge limitations in the study, including the lack of data for some regions of the world, and the fact that adaptation mechanisms and potential changes to demographics have not been accounted for.”…..TRANSLATION: “This is just a wild stab in the dark intended to support CAGW propaganda and our incomes.”

In all future temperature estimates as in real measured temperature, the tropics warms least. It is allways the poles and the temperate areas that should be warmer. How could that influence the tropics most?
The mention of the Paris treaty gives a clue.

“The largest study to date of the potential temperature-related health impacts of climate change has shown that as global temperatures rise, the surge in death rates during hot weather outweighs any decrease in deaths in cold weather, with many regions facing sharp net increases in mortality rates.”

If this was to occur it would have already happened now during so called global warming over the past number of decades. Populations have increased not declined and the change occurring is so small it has no noticeable effect on the rate during winter or summer. Seasonal random usually extreme weather patterns are highly related for summer and winter. The fact this has not happened only makes this quotation wrong, statistics don’t back it and human populations have always thrived during warming climate periods in history.

Taking any short period and assuming this trend will occur for eternity has always been nonsense in these studies.

For example in the UK shown below the lowest deaths are in Summer and the highest in Winter with the rate nearly doubling. One of the most excess deaths occurred during the severe winter of 1962/63.

“Antonio Gasparrini, Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and lead author of the paper, said: “Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century.”

A clear case of green envy.
Gasparrini wants to get on the CAGW funding bandwagon.

“The research, funded by the Medical Research Council, involved creating the first global model of how mortality rates change with hot or cold weather. It used real data from 85 million deaths between 1984 and 2015, specific to a wide-range of locations that took into account different climates, socioeconomics and demographics.”

Real data?
Attributing 85 millions deaths that are suddenly attributed to some version of “climate change”. Imagine falsifying 85 million death certificates to write in “died from climate change”.

“Under the worst-case scenario (RCP 8.5), which assumes that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century, the authors show the potential for extremely large net increases in temperature-related mortality in the warmer regions of the world. In cooler areas, the less intense warming and large decrease in cold-related deaths may mean no net change or a marginal reduction in temperature-related deaths.”

So much for “real data”. Use falsified worst case projections as “real data”.
Use writing spin and sophistry to imply pure fantasy equals reality.

“Authors show the potential”, Really!?
The authors claim “the potential”; but do not attempt to demonstrate of prove their claims. More confirmation bias model self abuse.

Vague “warmer” and “cooler” insinuations.

Use of vague without context or actual measurement/observation word, e.g. “extremely large”. Using these false wordings to apply gross assumptions.

Then that last bit where any lack of temperature changes, or cooler temperatures have zero benefit.
That is when the researcher truly identifies himself as pure activist climate change religious disciple.

“Sir Andy Haines, Professor of Public Health & Primary Care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and study co-author, said: “This paper shows how heat related deaths will escalate in the absence of decisive action”

No, the paper does not show how heat related deaths will escalate. Instead the authors grossly assume deaths will escalate.

I see that as a Freudian slip – the implication is that the computer model projections used for the remainder of the analysis was not “real data.” That’s quite an admission, actually. Climate science seems to be the one field of science where relying upon fabricated data is acceptable practice.

Kurt:
If by “acceptable” you mean “preferred”, I whole heartedly agree.

Climate Science not only bases research claims and assumptions on models and guessed data; but without verification or proof, they happily feed that resulting false data into subsequent chained models as “data”.

False scientific results based on flimsy confirmation bias derivations. All they’ve actually proven to date is GIGO. A false science house of cards built on tidal sands.

I’m a little puzzled here as to why any models have to used at all to ascertain how the death rate will increase and by how much with a rise in global temperature, a temperature rise that is an assumption based on the output of unproven climate models.

A quick and dirty research project to check the validirty of this claim before the researchers suggest that they are total fools and then go onto prove it, is relatively easy to set up and run.

The USA has arguably the best records of the demographic characteristics for a nation of its geographical size as well as a number of relatively ethnically homogeneous groups such as african americans, white european type americans , Japanese and asian ethnic descended groups.

Plus its geographical extent caters for a very wide range of temperatures and conditions from north to south and does so also across all of the east / west longitudes the USA occupies.

The “average” temperatures across the American land mass differs by far more than just two degrees, the criteria used everywhere in climate change science where death and disaster will descend upon the planet if two degrees rise in temperate is exceeded buy more than few thousand’s of a degree C.

A far greater average latitudunal influenced temperature range than two degrees occurs going from the American northern regions to its southern regions.

The researchers could have simply look at the death rate data for each ethnic grouping and compared that death rate against temperature based on the rough north to south average latitudinal temperature changes to see what the death rates are in each ethnic grouping is, relative to the average temperature variations and increases that occurs as one moves from North to South in the USA.

Based on the repeatedly proposed and claimed increased death rates from increasing global temperatures , there should be a very marked increase in the death rate per thousand going from the colder average temperature northern regions of the USA to the much warmer and higher average temperatures of the southern regions of the USA.

The USA even has those various racial groups to do further comparisons on re death rates within ethnic and racial groupings relative to increase’s in temperature with changes in latitude in the USA..

Repeat with China, similar latitudinal increases in temperature from north to south and a homogenous racial grouping to reduce the racial factor.

Likewise the Russians / Slavs in Eastern Europe.
Much the same latitudinal changes in tempeerature there also and a racial profile that is similar from North to South.

Australia, again mostly a european based racial grouping and good records and big differences in latitudinal temperatures which should make any increased deathrates per thousand very obvious if death rates were influenced by increases in average temperature.

It seems that there are a number of locations around this planet where a small piece of research would either back up what these researchers are claiming , that death rates will increase with increasing global temperatures or completely disprove their claims.
Claims that I believe are totally and completely spurious and based on ignorance and incompetence.

But most of all on the isolated in their ivory towers, a closed door to the realities of the outside world, rigid silo mentality where nobody else’s input or suggestions are allowed or accepted as “We are climate scientists so we don’t need any suggestions or advice from that low level, ignorant and “deplorable” proletariat” from “Fly Over Land”.

The biggest problem with this garbage is that it fail the most basic of economic tests – the allocation of scare resources and the trade-offs that involves.

I can spend my resources preventing global warming, but those resources CANNOT then be spent elsewhere. To take a simple example, I can employ somebody making a windmill or I can employ that person finding a cure for cancer.

How many lives would be saved with each job? Of course we don’t know and cannot know, but if you want to work out what we should do in terms of “lives” then we need to attempt to know. More expensive energy means fewer resources into hospitals. What’s the trade-off there in lives?

This is typical non-economist, Leftist thinking, where using a resource for one thing somehow mans it can still be used elsewhere. And if you present work using that assumption, IT IS SIMPLY WRONG. I don’t even need to argue about hot or cold. It must be wrong.

So if it gets hotter and wetter in places hot and wet more people will die. Hmmmmm. Higher rice yields, more monsoon rains, more food. Reliable water supplies, increased production and wealth, more money for health and education. Back to kindergarten.

It’s not heat or cold that kills, it’s departures from the norm that kill.
If CO2 actually did cause the world’s temperatures to rise by 2C (no chance of that actually happening), then that would raise the norm, it wouldn’t cause more heat waves.

Just returned from a trip in my turbodiesel Dodge dually delivering coal fired furnaces to Idaho via North Carolina. Burned MANY gallons of diesel fuel in an effort to return the carbon to the environment from which it came. Last night somebody hit a power pole cutting off power at home. Great another opportunity to fire up my diesel generator!! Later this winter I’m sure an Arctic Vortex will force me and fellow North
Carolinians to fire up our oil furnaces. E’ll be alive and warm that’s what I call ADAPTATION!!!!!!!!!!

In the real world, cold kills more than heat.
In the real world, warming results in warmer lows where it’s cold and barely changes the highs where it’s hot.
In the real world, poverty kills more than hot and cold together.

To produce this ‘study’, they must have assumed the opposite of all three.
They must know their recommendations will result in death, and they must not care.

There is always a name to cloak corruption. Here it is “mitigation strategies”.
I can ask how how Socialists can live with death and slavery, and I know the answer: they lie.
But I can’t see how a lie can be big enough to hide the real world.